Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>]

>>>>> "BF" == Ben Francis <lists AT hippygeek.co.uk> writes:

    BF> The CC licenses have a few problems which makes them non-free
    BF> under DFSG terms -->
    BF> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html

1) and 2) seem like royal bullshit to me, written by someone
unfamiliar with the DFSG.

DFSG 3 doesn't require that _any_ modification _must_ be allowed --
for example, software that can only be distributed intact with patches
is still considered DFSG-free. Several licenses considered DFSG-free
require that parts of the original work be retained, such as copyright
notices, and that the original author's work be recognized.

I'm pretty sure by 2.0 and by-sa 2.0 are fully DFSG-compliant.

    BF> Does anyone know if Creative Commons are aware that the Debian
    BF> community still considers CC to be non-free and are they
    BF> bothered by this?

That's a draft summary, not a final decision. I'll jump in on the
Debian side and try to get this straight, though.

~ESP

-- 
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://wikitravel.org/en/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide